Stanley everlasting chisel

I have only recently become aware of Stanley everlasting chisels. I realized I bought one in a group of chisels for $10.00 a while back. What makes them so special and expensive to buy? The one I have feels heavier than other Stanley chisels of the same size. How were they built? When were they built? Thanks in advance for the answers.

(post #96627, reply #1 of 4)

I tried to get a scan of an old Stanley catalog to load here, but its beyond me. Basically the Everlasts have a metal shank from that butt cap, through the handle, and connecting to the chisel. The worn out specimen that I've got here has some play in the connection between handle and chisel, so apparently they assembled them from two basic pieces. The "seam" on the good ones is barely noticeable.

Mine all have 5-6-24 patent dates, with one showing a 1908 date, and I don't know how late they were made. All of them that I've owed have had the "sweetheart" logo, dating them to the mid 20's.

Stanley claimed the "special care" was given to the tempering of these chisels. Not sure myself, Stanley was a master of propaganda, but the ones I've used seem to be good chisels. At the prices they bring though, Its easy to leave them in the rack and reach for something a little less collectible. You got a good deal if yours is in good shape. An Everlast in decent shape will usually fetch between $50 and $100.

(post #96627, reply #2 of 4)

I don't know why some tools become collectible, while others are relegated to oblivion. I like the chisels you mention for their feel and balance. I don't think that the steel is any better than a conventional modern day chisel from the same manufacturer. In fact, when I hear arguments that somehow the "quality" of steel in older hand tools is better, I wonder how the understanding of metallurgy became a lost science. I buy old hand tools like many woodworkers for their superior ergonomics and to use tools that I need for my work which are no longer produced(ie planer guage).

(post #96627, reply #3 of 4)

>> ... when I hear arguments that somehow the "quality" of steel in older hand tools is better,

>> I wonder how the understanding of metallurgy became a lost science.

One theory I've heard is that quality was more variable 100 years ago, because processes couldn't be as tightly controlled, and that the higher quality old tools were more likely to be preserved, while the lower quality tools were discarded or recycled or whatever.